The field of language planning and policy (LPP) provides a rich array of research opportunities for applied linguists and social scientists. However, as a multidisciplinary field that seeks to understand, among other things, why some languages thrive whereas others are marginalized, LPP may appear quite theoretical and far removed from the lives of many English language teaching (ELT) practitioners. This is unfortunate, because ELT professionals-be they teachers, program developers, materials and textbook writers, administrators, consultants, or academics-are involved in one way or another in the processes of LPP. The purpose of this article is to unravel those processes and the role of ELT professionals in them for both theoretical and practical reasons: theoretical, because we believe there are principled ways to account for why particular events affect the status and vibrancy of languages and speech communities, and practical, because we believe there are ways to influence the outcome of social processes. In general, we find that the principle of linguistic self-determinism-the right to choose (within limits) what languages one will use and be educated in-is not only viable but desirable for LPP decision making because it both promotes social equity and fosters diversity. In this article, we examine how ELT professionals are already actively engaged in deciding language policies, how they promote policies reaffirming or opposing hierarchies of power that reflect entrenched historical and institutional beliefs (see Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, this issue), and how they might affect changes in their local contexts.T he field of language planning and policy (LPP) has witnessed significant growth over the past 25 years. Scholars from a variety of disciplines, including linguistics, education, political science, history, policy studies, law, demography, and sociology, have continually broadened
In this article, we take up the call for more multilayered and ethnographic approaches to language policy and planning (LPP) research by sharing two examples of how ethnography can illuminate local interpretation and implementation. We offer ethnographic data collected in two very different institutions—the School District of Philadelphia and the Andean regional graduate program in bilingual intercultural education in Cochabamba, Bolivia—both of which act as intermediary agencies between national language policies and local educational initiatives. Drawing from long‐term ethnographic work in each context, we present excerpts from spoken and written discourse that shed light on the opening up or closing down of ideological and implementational spaces for multilingual language education policy and practice. We illustrate through our examples that ethnographic research can, metaphorically speaking, slice through the layers of the LPP onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) to reveal agentive spaces in which local actors implement, interpret, and perhaps resist policy initiatives in varying and unique ways.
As US classrooms approach a decade of response to No Child Left Behind, many questions and concerns remain around the education of those labeled as 'English language learners,' in both English as a Second Language and bilingual education classrooms. A national policy context where standardized tests dominate curriculum and instruction and first language literacy is discouraged and undervalued poses unusual challenges for learners whose communicative repertoires encompass translanguaging practices. Drawing on the critical sociolinguistics of globalization and on ethnographic data from US and international educational contexts, we argue via a continua of biliteracy lens that the welcoming of translanguaging and transnational literacies in classrooms is not only necessary but desirable educational practice. We suggest that Obama's current policies on the one hand and our schools' glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for innovative programs, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the multiple, mobile communicative repertoires and translanguaging/transnational literacy practices of students and their families.
The one language-one nation ideology of language policy and national identity is no longer the only available one worldwide (if it ever was). Multilingual language policies which recognize ethnic and linguistic pluralism as resources for nation-building are increasingly in evidence. These policies, many of which envision implementation through bilingual intercultural education, open up new worlds of possibility for oppressed indigenous and immigrant languages and their speakers, transforming former homogenizing and assimilationist policy discourses into discourses about diversity and emancipation. This paper uses the metaphor of ecology of language to explore the ideologies underlying multilingual language policies, and the continua of biliteracy framework as ecological heuristic for situating the challenges faced in implementing them. Specifically, the paper considers community and classroom challenges inherent in implementing these new ideologies, as they are evident in two nations which introduced transformative policies in the early 1990s: post-apartheid South Africa's new Constitution of 1993 and Bolivia's National Education Reform of 1994. It concludes with implications for multilingual language policies in the United States and elsewhere.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.